Samuels v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement

Filing 11

ORDER granting 9 Respondent's Motion to Dismiss the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. See attached Order. The Clerk is directed to close this file. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 06/04/14. (Rock, K.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
RALSTON SAMUELS,
Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT
Respondent.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:13-CV-00901-VLB
JUNE 4, 2014

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [Dkt. 9]
Ralston Enrico Samuels (“Samuels” or “Petitioner”), filed a Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus (the “Petition”) on June 24, 2013, challenging the denials of his
requests for supervised release from immigration detention during the pendency
of his appeals from his order of removal. He argued that Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) had held him for nine months with no removal
likely in the foreseeable future due to his pending appeals.
While this Petition was pending, Samuels also had a Petition for Review of
his Final Order of Removal and a Motion for Stay of Removal pending in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit denied
these motions on September 25, 2013 and removal was effected the following
day.
On November 4, 2013 ICE filed a motion to dismiss the Petition. [Dkt. 9.]
ICE asserts that there must be a controversy at every stage of litigation such that
the court has the ability to give the plaintiff relief. See, e.g., Al Najjar v. Ashcroft,
273 F.3d 1330, 1336 (11th Cir. 2001) (“If events that occur subsequent to the filing
of a lawsuit or an appeal deprive the court of the ability to give the plaintiff or

appellant meaningful relief, then the case is moot and must be dismissed”) (citing
Hall v. Beals, 396 U.S. 45, 48 (1969)). ICE rightly argues that the case or
controversy is now moot as removal was effected on September 26, 2013.
The removal order is final and the only issue being presented is whether
Petitioner should have been granted supervised release while his appeal from the
removal order was pending. This issue is now moot because Petitioner’s removal
was effected. Cf. Shiqi Xue v. Holder, 354 F. App'x 596, 597 (2d Cir. 2009) (finding
habeas petition to be moot where order of removal became final during the
pendency of the habeas action; Edwards v. Ashcroft, 126 F. App'x 4 (2d Cir. 2005)
(finding habeas petition to be moot where petitioner had been released from
immigration detention during the pendency of the habeas action). As the issue is
now moot, the court grants ICE’s Motion to Dismiss the Petition.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

________ _/s/___________
Hon. Vanessa L. Bryant
United States District Judge
Dated at Hartford, Connecticut: June 4, 2013